kinch2002
Premium Member
I don't see why it isn't. The aim is to find the shortest solution to the scramble. You sound as if you think linear FM should be the only way allowed.
[Help Thread] FMC Discussion
- Thread starter blah
- Start date
MarcelP
Legend
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,854
- Location
- Noord Holland, The Netherlands
- WCA ID
- 2012POOT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
For reversing a scramble I often make mistakes in writing down the correct reversed scramble. So I made a tool for me that can do the reverse scramble in my last layer trainer:
In my signature you will find the page.
In my signature you will find the page.
Last edited by a moderator:
mycube
Veteran
if you train writing down your reverse scramble you don't do this mistakes so often. so better train it than using a tool for this.
besides you are not allowed to use this tool for FMC.
besides you are not allowed to use this tool for FMC.
kinch2002
Premium Member
With regards to accuracy, if you can't write it down backwards correctly, then you probably can't read it backwards correctly either, so it doesn't matter which one you do.
With regards to time, I find the time it takes to write down the inverse is longer than any extra time spent reading it backwards every time (nothing in my case), so I never write it down any more.
With regards to time, I find the time it takes to write down the inverse is longer than any extra time spent reading it backwards every time (nothing in my case), so I never write it down any more.
Cubenovice
Forever Slow
Please explain?
Please explain?
Unless you mean the delegate should read out a scramble and the competitors would have to dictate a solution within the hour.
Sans cube, sans paper, sans pen...
No, you get a scramble, pen and paper.
You can use up to three cubes to intellectually fool around with.
Well done but please note that you cannot use this for the online competitions
BTW: here's the almost ultimate alg translator: http://cube.crider.co.uk/algtrans.html
The ultimate translator is obviously your intellect
Last edited:
elrog
Veteran
I really don't know why you even need an explanation, but here you go. I said that the NISS method wasn't solving in as few moves as possible by human intellect. By coming up with a solution that uses the inverse of the scramble, you are not showing intellegence in that you came up with that short of a solution. You simply played with it enouhg until you changed it enough not to count as the inverse scramble, yet be the inverse scramble.
Yes, I think it should be linear. This is already made up for because you have 3 cubes. If it is not linear, you would only need one cube.
The scramble should not even be a part of FMC. It should be based off of how few moves you can solve the cube from a particular position. Giving a short scramble to get to the position is just making it that much easier to come up with a short solution.
I think FMC should go like this: Every competitor is given a particular position on their cube. Each competitor would try to find the shortest solution they they can for that position withing a designated time limit (an hour is fine with me, but any longer would end up with everyone having a similar solution). Whoever can find the shortest soltion to that particular position in the time limit wins. This would allow for the competitors to use as many cubes as they need or go back to the original position as many times as they'd like.
Ollie
Legend
If this were true then you've just completely devalued the current WR FMC solution which indeed uses NISS. For someone to be able to find a 20-move solution (which I believe was optimal for the scramble given) is a monumental achievement however you look at it.
kinch2002
Premium Member
You really need to learn much more about FM before you try to comment on it again.
Nobody just takes the inverse and tweaks it a bit before declaring it. Please learn more about how to use NISS.
Agreed that 3 cubes isn't really needed. Linear with 3 cubes makes so much less sense though
You aren't allowed to base your solution off the scramble. Having a short scramble therefore does not make any difference, apart from that it is quicker to scramble into the required position.
It seems like you've never even tried FM before
How can they go back to the original position without being given the scramble, unless you now want everyone to memorise the scramble at the start? Other than that, you just described the current rules of FM.
elrog
Veteran
I beleive he solved it in 20 moves while the scramble was 18 moves? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have tried FMC before (not in a competition). My lowest move count that I've gotten is 30.
You could start with many cubes in the scrambled position so that you don't have to memorize the scramble to go back to it all the time. You also wouldn't have to memorize it if you were given it.
Yes, prehaps I need to learn more about NISS before I go any further. This might somehow explain how your not allowed to base your solution off the scramble, though you need the scramble and its inverse? Things aren't adding up. If the scramble effects your solutiong, your solution was based off the scramble.
I have tried FMC before (not in a competition). My lowest move count that I've gotten is 30.
You could start with many cubes in the scrambled position so that you don't have to memorize the scramble to go back to it all the time. You also wouldn't have to memorize it if you were given it.
Yes, prehaps I need to learn more about NISS before I go any further. This might somehow explain how your not allowed to base your solution off the scramble, though you need the scramble and its inverse? Things aren't adding up. If the scramble effects your solutiong, your solution was based off the scramble.
Last edited:
Ollie
Legend
Correct, I was under the impression that scrambles were a minimum of 20 moves in HTM. Alas, it does not take away from the skill required to be able to calculate a 20 move solution in under an hour, since if you "played with it enough until you changed it enough" without applying any form of tactics or problem-solving then you are extremely unlikely to find a low solution such as this by chance.
Cubenovice
Forever Slow
You should really try to understand NISS first before making false statements about it.
Consider this: not providing a scramble does not prevent people from using NISS.
- Get scrambled cube
- Write down your 60 move speedsolving solution
- Voila: there is your inverse scramble.
Maybe the best argument against your misinterpretation of NISS is that this “60 move long inverse scramble” would give exactly the same NISS results as an optimal 18 move inverse scramble.
Once you understand why this is the case we can discuss NISS in more detail.
elrog
Veteran
Even if you would get the same solution, I'd bet it would be easier with a shorter scramble. Therefor, you should still have to figure out a solution yourself on one cube, then use that cubes solution with NISS to find a shorter one. It would then actually become useful to be able to get short solutions without using NISS, because you need it for the first solve.
EDIT: Would you not find the 18 move optimal scramble if you were given the 60 move one? I know that because you are given the optimal solution for FMC, you are not allowed to use the optimal solution if you can find it. This in itself is a reason not to use the optimal scramble.
EDIT: Would you not find the 18 move optimal scramble if you were given the 60 move one? I know that because you are given the optimal solution for FMC, you are not allowed to use the optimal solution if you can find it. This in itself is a reason not to use the optimal scramble.
Last edited:
Julian
Veteran
1. You are not necessarily given the optimal scramble for FMC.
2. There is often more than 1 optimal solution for a given scramble.
kinch2002
Premium Member
You still make no sense to me. Do you actually undertstand how to use NISS? Have you ever used it? It doesn't sound like it
Most scrambles in comp are not optimal, but that's irrelevant. The length of the scramble that you are given does not affect the solution in any way, apart from that it doesn't take you so long to scramble. By not providing the scramble, you're saying that we should all waste our time at the start writing down a random solution so that we can invert it. How is that a measure of human intelligence? You just forced everyone to waste the first 5 minutes of their time.
elrog
Veteran
I get your points Julian, but from what cubenovice posted, it seemed that because you will always find the same solution for the same position with a different scramble, that you would find the optimal solution because it is a solution to the scramble.
@ Kinch: I really can't understand what you don't understand. I write in clear English. THE POEPLE WHO ARE INTELLEGENT ENOUGH TO FIND A SHORT SOLUTION QUICKLY WILL GET DONE QUICKER BECAUSE OF USING NISS ON A SHORTER INVERSE SCRAMBLE. How is that not using human intellegence? Most people will get done within an hour anyway, but you could always lower the time limit to 30 minutes to make people use intellegence in all aspects of cubing rather than just NISS.
@ Kinch: I really can't understand what you don't understand. I write in clear English. THE POEPLE WHO ARE INTELLEGENT ENOUGH TO FIND A SHORT SOLUTION QUICKLY WILL GET DONE QUICKER BECAUSE OF USING NISS ON A SHORTER INVERSE SCRAMBLE. How is that not using human intellegence? Most people will get done within an hour anyway, but you could always lower the time limit to 30 minutes to make people use intellegence in all aspects of cubing rather than just NISS.
kinch2002
Premium Member
I agree, that is using human intelligence. But I still see no reason to add this part to the event. What if someone writes their solution down incorrectly the first time and then can't do anything for the rest of the hour because they no longer have the scramble? What if you are given an incorrect scramble? You wouldn't know until someone checks your result!
How is lowering to 30 minutes forcing people to use intelligence in all aspects rather than just NISS? Not everyone just spams NISS every single time. Good luck using that as your only technique. FM is not currently a measure of how well you can use NISS.
Cubenovice
Forever Slow
One specific person would indeed find the same solution because you are not solving “the scramble” you are solving “a specific state of the cube”. This specific state can be created by an unlimited number of scrambles. The scramble provided by the WCA delegate or (in case you did not receive a scramble to start with) an inversed speedsolve solution.
I did not mean that everyone would find the same solution for the same state, let alone that everyone would end up with the optimal solution.
It is very rare that people find the exact same solution but it has happened before. My “record” is having the first 14 moves in common with someone else in the fmc.mustcube competition.
This is a result of using the same blockbuilding approach and the specific opportunities in the scramble.
An optimal solution is very unlikely to ever be found because, as opposed to human solutions, optimal solutions do not involve blockbuilding or “having to preserve already solved parts”.
You still do not get NISS do you?
You seem to associate NISS with copying part of the (inverse) scramble into your solution: it is not.
Using NISS just gives you a “different” cube state to work with.
You should really try it or analyze some NISs solves; there are many examples in this thread.
For instance: take two solved cubes and on the first use the normal scramble, on the second apply the inverse scramble.
Now you have two cubes that look quite different. You can scan both for nice block building opportunities.
I would say this is a very clever way of increasing you chances of finding a good solution.
Now take a closer look: you will find some similarities in the two cubes.
In your CAPS part you are pulling two unrelated things together : shorter scrambles and NISS
Keeping all other things equal:
- Shorter scrambles, regardless of normal or inverse will indeed help you get done quicker (less scrambling time)
- Using NISS will slow you down ( you need to solve /scramble the cube more often + extra time needed to convert your moves found in NISS mode)
- Using NISS requires more thinking / focus / cube understanding than solving without NISS. There may be a link to human intellect here?
- Using NISS is no guarantee for a better result
LOL, now you are saying that using NISS is using human intelligence.
I thought your whole point of this discussion was to prove the exact opposite?
Seriously though: try a couple of solves involving NISS (better yet, post them here) and then let us know how you feel about the method.
elrog
Veteran
I have always thought NISS was just using the inverse scramble and finding moves that are not needed and cancelling them leaving you with only the core of the solution. Thus, it would make sense that you could get a solution so different that it has a different core.
I also wasn't refering to NISS when I said it is human intellegence.. I didn't say that NISS wasn't, but I didn't say it was. Now, I will say that yes it takes a small amount of intellegence to do most anything. If one were not intellegent enough, they could not even decipher notation.
I will go analyze some NISS solves and see how it works and get back to you about how much intellegence I think it uses. I've actually learned quite a bit from you guys explaining my misconceptions. Thanks.
mark49152
Premium Member
It took some intelligence to come up with the idea, but isn't using NISS just a case of doing two solves and choosing the shortest solution? Why would that take more intelligence than doing one solve? Inverting sequences is easy enough.
cuBerBruce
Veteran
No, that's not what NISS is.
